RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/128/Add.1 
23 November 2010 
 (10-6255) 
General Council 
21 October 2010  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 21 October 2010  
 
Chairman:  Mr John Gero (Canada) 
 
Addendum  
   At the request of the delegations concerned, the following statements should be added to the 
Annex – Statements by delegations at the inform al meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on 
19 October 2010. 
 
European Union  
 
 Would like to thank the DG for his report.  We  support the approach that you have outlined. 
Our own assessment of the cocktail approach pursued in the last few months is also positive.  In 
particular, we agree that the ambassador level sma ll group meetings show potential.  They can aid the 
work of NGs by developing a better understanding of  the remaining gaps and considering how they 
could be addressed.  The small groups have forced ambassadors – the bridge between the technical 
and the political levels – to get seriously involved, a nd take a view of the rela tive weight of different 
issues.  We are talking substance, not process.  We are seeing already some useful ideas to bridge 
differences in various areas of the negotiations – fo r example in Fish subsidies where there is fresh 
thinking on scope and architecture, SDT where there is emerging convergence on the monitoring mechanism, on LDC questions, and on trade facilitation.  And though it is early days, there are some 
creative ideas being put forward on how to frame  market access in services and NAMA, where there 
is a lot of unfinished business.  We need to ma ke sure that any new ideas, any possible solutions 
identified are brought into the NG process as soon as po ssible.  So the EU supports the continuation of 
this small group process for some more time. We w ould stress that all negotiating areas need to 
continue to be given attention, and especially t hose that are lagging behind in terms of technical 
maturity.  As you yourself remembered, this is impor tant because, as and when we get to the point of 
agreeing modalities, it will be much easier to agree th em if Members have at that time a better sense 
of the commercial benefit, the overall balance, the emerging landing zones in some of the other areas 
– be it fish, AD, GIs or Domestic Regulation, to name just some examples.  It is both an opportunity 
and a necessity.  As we go forward, more efforts are needed to identify po ssible solutions, and this 
should be our priority for the next cycle of meet ings. After that we should review how best to 
continue.  
 But looking ahead, this process is not enough in  itself – small group is not a game-changer; 
solving the “gateway” issues will require firm t op-down guidance.  The Seoul G20 Leaders meeting 
can and should provide this impetus.  We h ope the G20 will indeed send a clear signal by 
(1) committing to end-game negotiations in 2011;  (2) recognising the need for give & take and a 
contribution by all;  (3) making a commitment to use political capital to sell a deal to their domestic WT/GC/M/128/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  constituencies.  Although G20 leadership will be ve ry welcome, perhaps a precondition for changing 
gear, the G20 cannot do the work on our behalf. Any signal from Seoul has to be taken up here, where 
all Members are represented.  We will have to in crease the intensity of our work here to maintain 
momentum, and the process will eventually need to  move back to the Negotiating Groups.  And 
speaking of the negotiating groups, glad that you stressed  the centrality of their role.  The Chairs of all 
NGs need to be in a position to prepare at the right moment draft consolidated texts with clear choices 
to enable our decision makers to make the necessary trade-offs.  This is why it is so important to 
ensure that all negotiating topics reach a sufficiently high level of technical maturity.  In sum, we are 
encouraged so far by the positive atmosphere in re cent discussions here in Geneva, and urge everyone 
to continue in this constructive spirit.  Time is not  on our side, and if we want to conclude the Round 
in 2011, we will need to work very hard in the months ahead.  When referring to currency issues you 
referred in your statement of the judgement of histor y. I think history will judge very harshly all of us 
here if we prove incapable of conc luding the Doha Round next year.  Surely it cannot be so difficult.  
 
Hong Kong, China  
 
 Thank you for convening this informal TNC, wh ich provides us with a timely opportunity to 
assess where the negotiations now stand.  We thank you also for giving us yo ur take on the latest 
developments, including the work of the Ambassador small groups.  At our last meeting, just before 
the summer break, we talked with some hope about a new dynamic that had been detected, but there 
was a shared sense of caution that we had to wait and see if this dynamic could be more firmly rooted.  
Some months have passed since then, and I think it is fair to say that this dynamic has not only 
survived but also expanded with the formation a nd convention of Ambassador  small groups on all 
negotiating subjects.  I would like to make a few observations or these developments.  My impression 
is that the discussions have, on the whole, been positive and constructive.  The brainstorming sessions 
have enabled colleagues to participate in some di rect and frank exchanges of views on the outstanding 
issues.  While there has not been any major breakthrough, there is a clear sense of positive 
engagement.  The discussions we took part in were pragmatic and fruitful, with participants ready to 
exchange new ideas and to move towards identifying possible eventual landing zones.  We therefore 
support continuation of the process pro tempore.     We are well aware that the pace of progr ess has varied among these groups.  But that is 
understandable, given that the outstanding issues are of varying degrees of difficulty.  We would also 
like to think that, to a certain extent, the differen ce in progress is a reflection of the relative maturity 
of the various negotiating areas.  And this is wher e the new process can also make a contribution, as it 
has allowed colleagues to focus on each and ever y negotiating subject, including those areas which 
hitherto had been given lesser attention.  This w ill help bring various subjects to a similar level of 
maturity, thereby setting the stage for horizontal tr ade-offs in the endgame.  But much as we support 
the Ambassador small group process, which forms part of the cocktail approach we have all agreed to 
take, we must stress that we consider this as play ing only a complementary and subsidiary role to the 
multilateral process.  As we have said on many occasions, we must adhere to the primacy and centrality of the multilateral process.  After all, no Me mber likes to be left out of discussions for long 
on issues in which they have a strong commercial or  systemic interest, and therefore no small group 
or any other forms of bilateral or plurilateral cons ultations can replace multilateral engagement.  It is 
only through collective participation that we can all subscribe and sign up to the eventual deal.  It is 
therefore important that the progress achieved at th e Ambassador small groups  should be continuously 
reviewed and fed back into the Chair-led negotiati ng groups at a suitable juncture, with a view to 
enabling the preparation of texts for the endgame.  The TNC will meanwhile also continue to serve as 
an important conduit for ensuring transparency.  Let me say in closing that we fully acknowledge that 
there are limits and confines to this new process.   While we may expect it to help make further 
progress in better defining the outstanding gaps and options on the table, the fact remains that no 
compromises can be made by the Geneva-based Amb assadors unless they have suitable instructions to 
do so.  To go the final mile, there must be strong pol itical commitments and resolve.  To this end, we  WT/GC/M/128/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  look forward to the upcoming APEC Ministers’ and Leaders’ Meetings, and the G20 Summit in 
November, which can help provide us with the mu ch-needed political input.  We hope for a high level 
of engagement during the G20 session on trade, culm inating in a strong and unequivocal signal from 
our political leaders that we must engage in real  negotiations and conclude  the Round expeditiously.  
The clock is ticking fast, and we must work hard on the remaining issues and grasp the badly-needed 
opportunity to reach a deal in 2011. 
 
__________